The Congregation of Mary Immaculate
Queen (also known as CMRI and the Fatima Crusaders)
is a self-professed Catholic and validly ordained priestly society
originating in the United States, founded in 1967. It offers the
Tridentine Mass and claims to preach the traditional Catholic faith,
rejecting the Second Vatican Council and upholds a right and true
sedevacantist position in regards to the Vatican II sect claimants to
the Papacy, since the Vatican II sect is totally apostate. Their
headquarters is at Mount Saint Michael in Spokane, Washington.

Under their founder Bishop Francis
Schuckardt, the organisation was somewhat controversial because of
the erratic behaviour of this figure and the fact that he illicitly
received his orders from the schismatical apostolic line of the Old
Catholic Church (Jansenists); though the CMRI has always claimed to
espouse the traditional Catholic faith.

The present Superior General, Bishop
Mark Pivarunas, derives his apostolic lineage through the line of the
heretical Bishop
Ngo Dinh Thuc, “Archbishop” of Huế in
Vietnam (he
attended the robber’s Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed
its documents and there is no record of him ever recanting or
abjuring from his heresies, and by that fact alone, he was known to
be a notorious heretic who is not Catholic and holds no office in the
Church). This means that even if Mark
Pivarunas was Catholic (which he is not), his consecration by Thuc
would still not only be considered illegal, but also
schismatical if he knew that Bishop Thuc was a heretic or
schismatic.

The
Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction
Sanctissimus
of
August 31, 1595, stated that those
who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who
apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the
necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders,
but
not the right to exercise them.
In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in
the Constitution Etsi
pastoralis of
May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. …Not
only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established,
but further points were clarified. Schismatic
bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders
or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons
ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or
amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An
appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If
they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if
they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce
the schism of their ordaining prelate.
The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the
facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could
exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the
Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had
incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still
another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No
Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who
were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders
could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy
Office replied that in no
way
could that be allowed,
and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular
and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. …The
prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic
bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active
religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also
an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated
that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic
automatically incur a suspension a
divinis reserved
to the
Apostolic See.”
(The
Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal
Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon
Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp.
103-105)

By decreeing “in
no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that
it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be
ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic.
The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites use for
going to the notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc to be
consecrated bishops or ordained priests. They say there are no
Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop
to be consecrated or ordained, but Canon Law condemns this as we have
seen. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by
reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.

1917
Code of Canon Law:
“Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All
persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been
excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or
condemnatory sentence, or
from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically
incur suspensiona
divinis reserved
to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith
by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received
until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

The
Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons
ordained by schismatic bishops were,
upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to
be reconciled and absolved.
… Before the ordained
persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to
receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which
they had incurred.”

All
those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any
other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully
since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church)
lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically
teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of
the word and the sacraments: “If
anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by
ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the
Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or
schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the
sacraments: let him be anathema.”
(Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967). Plainly
no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme
need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law
infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine Law
that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with
non-Catholics and heretics).

Mark Pivarunas
was later consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Moisés Carmona of
Mexico in 1991. At present the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen
serves 29 churches and chapels in the United States, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. The organisation is growing and now has
centres in Europe, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. It also operates the
Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, while the nuns attached to the
congregation have a convent at Spokane.

If illegal
bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic
Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing
their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with
the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who
consecrated or ordained them.

The
Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any
errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced
any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their
ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or
secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

The Heretical CMRI

The following sections contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Many
traditional Catholics are familiar with the priests of the CMRI. For
those who are not, the CMRI is a society of priests which professes
to be Roman Catholic, ordains men validly according to the
traditional Roman Rite, rejects the New
Mass,
the Vatican
II sect
and the Vatican
II antipopes.
The CMRI has done many good things in favor of tradition and against
the Vatican II Counter Church, and for those things it deserves
credit.

However,
we have pointed out in our newsletters and magazines the
unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests of the CMRI hold to
heresy (as will be shown below). The priests of the CMRI hold to
heresy first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the
solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for
salvation. The CMRI holds that non-Catholics can be saved without the
Catholic Faith. Such a position is heresy.

The
following statements on Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation are from the highest teaching authority of the Catholic
Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees (decrees from the
Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching given to
the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings
are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium
(the extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,”
1441, ex cathedra (infallible statement from the chair of
Peter): “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are
joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the
unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for
those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to
salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and
practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that
nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms
and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has
persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

As
we can see from this infallible statement from the chair of Peter, no
one at all can be saved unless they are joined to the Church
before the end of their lives. Yet, many people today who call
themselves Catholic or Christian, boldly and obstinately assert the
direct opposite of this statement and claim that protestants,
heretics, Jews, schismatics and even Pagans can attain eternal life.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to
persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the
Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain
eternal life.”

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8,
Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes
to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each
one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt
perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40)

Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex
cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of
the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which
Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the
one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe
and simply confess this Churchoutside of which there is no
salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we
declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they
by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

Those
who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are
simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.
Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His
teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why
it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in
Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the
mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.
St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I
believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that
unless I believed, I should not understand.”

I
ask those supporters of the CMRI who are unfamiliar with the CMRI’s
belief in this regard not to dismiss this as something you simply
cannot accept (because the Catholic Church condemns you if you do).
Please consider the points below. Since the CMRI priests reject a
Catholic dogma, no one aware of this fact (which will be proven
below) can support them, be in religious communion with them or
receive the sacraments from them under pain of mortal sin. Those who
continue to do so obstinately will partake in their mortal sins
against the faith and will follow them to damnation.

Pope
St. Felix III (5th Century):
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to
defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound
evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage
them.”

James
4:17: “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and
doth it not, to him it is sin.”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325.1:
“Obligation to Profess the Faith - The faithful are
bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances
silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise
implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve
contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to their
neighbor.”

Pope
Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not
defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident
crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”

The
Catholic Church teaches the following concerning religious
association and communion with known heretics and schismatics and
entering their Churches:

Council
of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 364): “The members of the
Church are not allowed to meet...
any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if
they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they
repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”

The
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “It is not
permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at
or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said
in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the
past properly consecrated or blessed.”

“How
does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against
Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by
taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of
the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and
The Baltimore Catechism)

Peter
Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by
communicating with them [the heretics] despite (against) the Church’s
prohibition...”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7,
Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed
to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can
lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they
lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3,
Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards
spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence:
hence by holding communion in Divine worship[such as with a heretic,] one acts against the commandment,
and commits a mortal sin;”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314: “All apostates
from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or
schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very
fact] excommunication…”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1:
“The other is major excommunicationwhich
deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion
of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.]. WHEREFORE
IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN
EXCOMMUNICATION.”

Pope
St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather
ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the
sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.”
(Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

Pope
St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside
the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the
Apostle declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin"
(Romans 14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are
divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no
communion.”

III
Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or
layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses
of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be
deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any
bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let
him be suspended from communion.”

Pope
Pius VIII, TraditiHumilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb
outside this house [at
meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as
did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope
Gregory XVI, Commissumdivinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:
“Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house
[at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

Pope
Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep
away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or
parish priests; do not hold communionwith them especially in divine worship.”

Pope
Paul V (1552-1621), repeating his predecessors' interdict [of Pope
Paul IV (1476-1559)]: “Great has been the grief of our mind
for the tribulations and calamities ye have constantly undergone for
your adherence to the Catholic faith; and as we understand that these
trials are become more severe at present, our affliction is increased
exceedingly. For we are informed that ye are compelled, under the
most grievous penalties, to go to the churches of heretics, to
frequent their meetings, and be present at their sermons. Indeed
we are fully persuaded that ye who, with so much fortitude and
constancy, have hither-to undergone almost infinite miseries, that ye
might walk without stain in the law of the Lord, will never
consent to be defiled by communicating with those who have forsaken
the Divine law. Nevertheless, urged by the zeal of our
pastoral duty, and from paternal solicitude with which we daily
labour for the salvation of your souls, we are forced to
admonish and conjure you, that ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES
OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE
INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH
THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.”
(Quoted in Bp. George Hay's, "The Sincere Christian". [Pope
Paul V repeated his predecessors' interdict of Pope Paul IV, on
September 22nd, 1606 A.D. in his brief Romani Pontificis, contra
juramentum Fidelitatis – The Roman Pontiff, against the
Alligence.])

Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So,
Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never
allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non-Catholics.”

The
point is clearly made by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos:

Catholics
are absolutely forbidden to have “…any
intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version
of Christ’s teaching…” and the “…
Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics…”

Which
is why St. Paul says:

“You
cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of
devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord,
and of the table of devils.”
(1 Corinthians 10:21)

Because
any obstinate adult practitioner of a false sect or religion is
serving the Devil and not the true God, being the child of this
Devil, any practice of his false religion or sect is a partaking “of
the table of the devils.” This means the religious
ceremonies and prayers of a false sect or religion.

Apostolic
Constitutions, Book II, Section 7:62 (c. 380 AD.): “Take
heed, therefore, not to join yourselves in your worship with those
that perish… For there is no fellowship between God and
the devil; for he that assembles himself with those that favour the
things of the devil, will be esteemed one of them, and will inherit a
woe. … So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid
the assemblies of the ungodly… and of the
rest of the heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to
them we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by joining
in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be
partakers with them in their impiety.”

Our
Almighty Creator is appalled when His children soil themselves with
the filth of false religions or non-Catholic sects. So while it is
wrong to be at the ceremonies and prayers of a false religion because
it misleads non-Catholics and scandalizes Catholics, more than
anything by far is it gravely
sinfulbecause it betrays
God Himself.
God commands all
men
to worship in His Religion of Catholicism, and He is exceedingly
angry
when people violate this
most important of His commandments.

The
Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., 1948: “Article I—Active
Participation (Canon
1258, §1):
If the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the
auspices of a non-Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a
schismatic priest), it
expresses either faith in a
false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.
[Hence] active
religious participation with schismatics is always intrinsically
illicit.
The reasons for this absolute prohibition of canon 1258, §1,
have their origin in the natural and positive divine law. These
reasons are: 1) The
Church is the only de
jure [by
law] existing true religious society in which it is licit to render
to God the worship that is due Him;
2)the giving
of scandal through one’s quasi-approval of a false sect must be
avoided;
and 3) the danger of perversion from the true faith must remain
effectively neutralized.” (pp. 42-48)

As
Rev. Ignatius Szal explains from the beginning of his Canon Law
commentary:

“Communication
in religious rites [with heretics and schismatics] is forbidden
because of accompanying dangers such as perversion of faith and
scandal to others. This prohibition of the Church, found in Can.
1258, extends not only to active participation with schismatics in
rites that are of their nature non-Catholic, BUT ALSO EXCLUDES
COMMUNICATION WITH THEM IN RITES WHICH, THOUGH PECULIARLY CATHOLIC,
ARE EXERCISED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A NON-CATHOLIC SECT.”
(The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev.
Ignatius J. Szal)

First
Rev. Szal begins with questions asked the Holy Office concerning the
attendance at the Masses of schismatics. On Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy
Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or
other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics, and to warn them
that THEY
WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO
CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS,
which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic
rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic
Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass.
(Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta
Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus [hereafter Col.].
Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907. Vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668))

Continuing
his assay of Holy Office pronouncements, Szal lists further decisions
concerning Holy Communion. On June 17, 1839, The Sacred Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith forbade
the reception of Holy Communion from an heretical priest.
A general prohibition
against receiving any sacraments from schismatics
was issued by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
also forbade the use of the services given by schismatics for the
conferring of the sacraments.
Rev. Szal gives this stunning summary of these decisions as follows:

“From
the nature of the response which the Holy Office gave to questions
concerning the reception of absolution and Extreme Unction
from schismatics on the part of persons who are in danger of
death, IT SEEMS TO BE THE MIND OF THE CHURCH THAT VIATICUM
SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVED FROM SCHISMATICS UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.”
(Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

1.The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an
article entitled, “The Salvation of Those Outside the
Church.” It was published in the Winter 1992 issue of The
Reign of Mary, The CMRI’s publication (Vol. XXIV,
No. 70, p. 10.).

The
article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved,
which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching. In fact, the title
of the article “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church”
is a word for word denial of the Catholic dogma “Outside the
Church there is no salvation.” It is equivalent to publishing
an article entitled: “The Original Sin Mary Had.”

This
heresy was so blatant that I called the headquarters of the CMRI in
Washington and spoke to one of the priests about the article. He told
me that he had “no problem with it.” They hold to this
heresy because they adhere to Protocol 122/49, the heretical letter
also called Supremahaec
sacra
which was published in 1949 against Fr. Leonard Feeney. This
heretical, non-infallible letter teaches salvation by “implicit”
baptism of desire, including for those in “invincible
ignorance,” and for those who are not “members” of
the Church, and for those “who do not belong to the body of the
Catholic Church.” In other words, it teaches that there is
salvation for some people who don’t have the Catholic Faith or
believe in Jesus Christ. This is blatantly heretical. Its teachings
are utterly refuted by Catholic dogma, as proven in the section at
the end of this
article.

The
CMRI recently published a pamphlet defending “baptism of
desire” which implements arguments which have all been
thoroughly refuted. They use a combination of fallible texts (which
don’t prove the point), misunderstood texts (which don’t
state what they claim) and mistranslated texts to inculcate their
false position. In fact, they outrageously still use the “except
through” mistranslation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent that has
been discussed in this article.
They also don’t tell you in their easily refuted and dishonest
pamphlet that they hold that it’s possible for Jews, Muslims,
Buddhists, etc. to be united to the Church and saved.

2.Inthe Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary
(publication of the CMRI) Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5,
featured another heretical article called “The Boston
Snare,” by Bishop Robert McKenna. Like the CMRI, Bishop
Mckenna believes that members of all kinds of non-Catholic
religions can be saved. He says that the dogma Outside the Church
There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly”
outside the Church, which is a heretical idea.

Bishop
Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s
Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The
doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be
understood in the sense of knowingly
outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the
sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’
not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’?
For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How
could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the
Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended
for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical
consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but
rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit
of those outside the one ark of salvation.”

Frankly,
this has to be one of the more heretical statements made by a person
purporting to be a traditional Catholic bishop. As can be seen
clearly from these words, Bishop McKenna (like almost every modern
priest) rejects the true meaning of this dogma and holds that
non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. In a desperate
attempt to defend his heretical version of Outside the Church
there is no salvation, McKenna admittedly must change the
understanding of the dogmatic formula proclaimed by the popes. He
tells us that the “true” meaning of the dogma is that
only those who are “knowingly” outside the Church
cannot be saved. Oh really? Where was that qualification ever
mentioned in the dogmatic definitions on this topic? Nowhere!

Recognizing
that such an understanding runs contrary to the clear words of the
dogmatic definitions on the topic – none of which ever
mentioned “knowingly” and all of which eliminated all
exceptions – Bishop McKenna attempts to explain away the
problem.

Bishop
Robert Mckenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s
Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The
‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the
instruction of Catholics… but rather a solemn and
material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the
one ark of salvation.”

The
dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation, according to
Mckenna and the heretical CMRI which printed this article in
their magazine (Vol. XXIV, No. 83) because they believe the same
thing, is not a truth from Heaven, but a warning or admonition
written for non-Catholics! This is grotesque theological nonsense and
flat out heresy.

Pope
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3,
1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as
revealed are not truths fallen from Heaven, but
they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human
mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.” –
Condemned statement by Pope Pius X

As
we have already seen, dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven
which cannot possibly contain error. They are not merely
human statements written to warn non-Catholics, which are subject to
correction and qualification. Dogmas are infallible definitions of
the truth which can never be changed or corrected, and have no need
to be changed or corrected since they cannot possibly contain error.
Dogmas are defined so that Catholics must know what they must
believe as true from divine revelation without any possibility of
error, which is exactly the opposite of what McKenna and the CMRI
assert.

McKenna
and the CMRI are compelled to deny that dogmas are truths from Heaven
and to belittle dogmas to fallible “warnings for non-Catholics”
which can be corrected, because they desire to justify their
heretical belief in salvation outside the Church – i.e., those
“unknowingly” outside the Catholic Church –
which belief, as they unwittingly admit by employing such
argumentation, is directly contrary to the clear words of the
dogmatic definitions.

This
is perhaps what is most important about the heresy of Bishop Mckenna
and the CMRI: the dogma deniers – that is, those who believe in
the heresy that “baptism of desire” and “invincible
ignorance” can save those who die as non-Catholics (such as
Bishop McKenna and the CMRI and almost every modern priest whether he
is “traditional” or Novus Ordo) – are revealing by
such ridiculous argumentation that their “version”
of this dogma is incompatible with the words of the dogmatic
definitions; for if their version were compatible with the dogmatic
definitions they would never be forced into heretical statements
such as those above.

The
CMRI has printed other heretical articles on this issue, but it is a
demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their
priests, that they adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49 and
believe that invincible ignorance can save members of false
non-Catholic religions and persons who don’t believe in Christ.
This heresy is held by almost all priests today.

CONCERNING
THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS

Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For
not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature
to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or
heresy or apostasy.”

The
Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or
a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter
and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In
case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a
layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long
as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing
what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The
Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and
schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them
are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the
infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or
schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism
from making him a member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of
Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they
have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be
numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This
means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those
baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers,
are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject
to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does
this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing
his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she
becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the
Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she
obstinately rejects any
teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We
ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the
Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is
Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain
obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In
the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to
you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this
Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be
saved.”

So,
one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims,
Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving
valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost.
2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants, they are made
Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by
Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already
possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or
believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity
and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see
this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith
in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if
they become “obstinately separated from
the faith of this Roman Church.”

The
fact is that all Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its
dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated
from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their
membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the
“Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the
Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the
Catholic Faith for salvation.

The
baptized children who reach the age of reason (and become adults) in
Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in
the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the
Catholic Faith) and who
don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know
of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation,
and
who don’t embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic
faith, Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see
The
Natural Law)
or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE
CATHOLICS
IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.

Council
of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the
Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then
returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to
such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do
penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward
to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led
astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be
received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This
means that the children above reason who were attending the church
of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they
were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the
Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a
heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church
teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the
Church has always taught (as we have seen) – which is that
to be a heretic one must obstinately reject
something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism,
if anyone, retaining the
name Christian, pertinaciously
[or obstinately] denies or doubts
something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith,
[such a one] is a heretic.”

Please
consult the following sections to learn what things one can and
cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its
teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether such a person is
to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:

3.
A priest from the CMRI’s seminary in Nebraska and a nun from
the CMRI convent in Washington told me (when I questioned them
over the telephone) that non-Catholics who die in their false
religions can be saved without the Catholic faith.

This
has been the response of every priest of the CMRI that I have
questioned about this issue. While they admit that they believe that
non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic faith, and while they
admit that they have no problem with articles which deny Outside
the Church there is no salvation word for word, the priests of
the CMRI will also claim that they do hold the dogma Outside the
Church there is no salvation! Therefore, the priests of the CMRI
are heretical liars: they claim to hold Outside the Church there
is no salvation while they print articles denying it word for
word and while they tell anyone who asks them the appropriate
questions that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith!

The
SSPV, The
Roman Catholic,
Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With
the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine [on no salvation
outside the Church], however, I must take issue,
for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly,
nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or
good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members
of the Church at the moment of death. It
is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics
who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of
them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply
refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Notice
that the SSPV writer “simply refuse to believe” in the
Church’s dogma that all who die as non-Catholics
are lost. This is the SSPV’s public
teaching (and all of these heretical priestly societies teaches their
heresies publicly). Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside
the Church There is No Salvation until they
understand how there is justice in it are
simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.

Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctumnobis, Nov. 13,
1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic
faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now
profess and truly hold…”

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The
Athanasian Creed”, ex cathedra: “Whoever
wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds
the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and
undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish eternally.”

Those
with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching
first
and understand the truth in it (i.e., why
it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in
Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the
mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.
St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion,
Chap. 1: “For
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I
believe in order to understand.
For this also I believe, that unless
I believed, I should not understand.”

The
CMRI is in heresy, therefore, against the above infallible teaching
of the Catholic Church, in addition to many other statements from the
Magisterium. For those who find it hard to believe that the priests
of the CMRI could be this heretical and dishonest, do not be
surprised at all. Basically every single heretic who denies the dogma
Outside the Church there is no salvation will tell you that he
is not denying it. The heretics who believe in salvation outside the
Catholic Church know that the Catholic Church teaches that there is
no salvation outside the Church, so they cannot always come right out
and blatantly deny it (although the CMRI even did that in the
article they printed). The heretics who deny this dogma don’t
primarily reject it in name but in its meaning.

Pope
Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on
Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and
there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious
name of a deeper understanding.”

The
only meaning of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation
is that which holy Mother Church “has once declared” in
Her definitions. That meaning is that all who die without the
Catholic Faith or outside the Church or in a non-Catholic religion
cannot be saved.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,”
1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly
believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,
unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;
that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that
only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments
contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of
piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has
given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of
Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.”

The
CMRI totally rejects this meaning, as does almost every modern day
priest. Their meaning or “version” of this dogma is not
what the Church says it is; in fact, it is the opposite. Their
“version” of Outside the Church there is no salvationis that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved without the
Catholic faith in their false religions!

All
the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by
the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other
grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to
cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the
Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based
on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the
things which have been made, and by the natural light of human
reason.

St.
Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from
Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain
the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is
manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the
invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power
also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone
can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who
is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it
contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have
carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the
tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the
snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t
the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is
worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul
says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in
reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without
baptism.

St.
Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had
lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard
it without belief.” (The
Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 3: 1997)

Because
God is all knowing, He knew all of the good and bad sheep, the elect
and the damned, even before the earth was created: "For
all things were known to the Lord God, before they were created."
(Eccus. 23:29) And because God is all powerful, He creates the elect
as well as the damned and gives them both ample opportunities and
occasions in a time or times and place or places in which they can
cooperate with His grace and get baptized by water and enter the
Catholic Church sometime before they die, even if by a miracle,
provided on their own part there is no hindrance: "The
works of God are done in judgment from the beginning, and from the
making of them he distinguished their parts, and their beginnings in
their generations."
(Eccus. 16:26) "[God] hath
made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth,
determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation."
(Acts 17:26) And because God is all powerful, He clears all obstacles
that would prevent His elect of good-will from being
baptized by water and entering the Catholic Church: "No
word shall be impossible with God."
(Lk. 1:37)

St.
Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection:
It is possible that someone may be brought up in the
forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything
about the faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the
characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is
necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no
hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the
leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through
internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some
preacher of the faith to him…”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born
among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him
what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a
teacher to him.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a
man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless
he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

4.
Recently, someone we know was attending a Confirmation class at
the CMRI’s chapel in Santa Clarita, CA. The teacher of the
class, a layman, publicly stated that Jews can be saved without
the Catholic Faith.

The
person who heard this heresy subsequently went to the CMRI priest in
charge of the chapel in Santa Clarita, Fr. Dominic Radecki. The
person asked Fr. Radecki what he had to say about this horrible
heresy that had been uttered at his chapel, that Jews can be saved
without being Catholic. Fr. Radecki not only did not rebuke the
layman who had stated that Jews can be saved without the Catholic
faith, but he defended the layman’s heresy (that Jews
can be saved without the Catholic faith) – thus proving what
has been stated all along: that the CMRI priests reject the
dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation and are not
Catholics.

5.
The CMRI’s heretical denial of the dogma Outside the
Church there is no salvation is no more effectively
illustrated than in the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
by Dr. Ludwig Ott. The CMRI advertises for and sells the book
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott (at least
as of 9/24/03); and the position of Dr. Ott on the dogma Outside
the Church there is no salvation corresponds exactly to that
of the priests and nuns of the CMRI.

Dr.
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 311: “It
is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be
achieved outside the Church.”

Here
on page 311 Dr. Ott correctly tells us that it is the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers (not to mention the solemn teaching of the
Magisterium) that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church.
But watch this. On the page immediately before this (page 310!), Ott
tells us word for word the opposite!

Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The
necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of
precept, but also of means, as the comparison with the Ark, the means
of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows… In
special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or
of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced
by the desire for the same… In this manner also
those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can
achieve salvation.”

“But
let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above
these, is of evil” (Mt. 5:37).

From
one page to the next, Ludwig Ott contradicts himself on whether those
who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation! He even
uses the exact same verb – “achieve” – in
both sentences, but with the opposite meaning from one to the next:
1) “salvation cannot be achieved
outside the Church”; 2) those “outside the Church
can achievesalvation.” He uses the
exact same verb to mean the exact opposite thing from what he stated
on the page just before! His speech is not of God, but sadly of the
devil. Black is white and white is black; truth is error and error is
truth. And this is exactly the heretical position of the CMRI.

But
for the pre-Vatican II heretics who obstinately condemned the priest
Father Leonard Feeney who rightly defended this dogma of the Faith,
obstinately despised the dogma Outside the Catholic Church there
is no salvation and sowed the seeds for the Great Apostasy that
is now upon us, it is no problem believing that there is salvation
outside the Catholic Church, while simultaneously pretending to
believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is
no problem for these people because they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).

Pope
Gregory XVI, SummoIugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no
salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these
misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men
are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even
heretics may attain eternal life… You know how
zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which
these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith
and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate
passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the
Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly
testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not
possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all
who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official
acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the
decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of
Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one
universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is
saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly
mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See,
not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the
Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because Wethought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of
Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and
insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about
this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such
remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from
reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

The
“priests”, ecclesiastics and adherents of the Vatican II
sect, as well as the priests and followers of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI
and all other independent, validly ordained traditional “Catholic”
priests in this great apostasy (and those who knowing this
information persist in denying this infallible dogma), as well as
those who obstinately support or agree with the heretical groups,
societies or sects, or the heresy advanced by these heretics, should
rightly fear, as Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a
doubt inherit a place in Hell for obstinately denying a Catholic
dogma if they do not repent and convert.

Pope
Gregory XVI, MirariVos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They
should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who
are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they
disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.Therefore,
‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold
the Catholic faith whole and inviolate(Athanasian Creed).”

6.TheCMRI and its heretical leader, Bishop Mark
Pivarunas, are also adamant defenders of birth control by means of
Natural Family Planning.

The
CMRI priests instruct people that Natural Family Planning is an
acceptable form of birth control (see Natural
Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control). Bishop Pivarunas
also publicly defended this sinful birth control practice at one of
their conferences. Most recently, in the Winter of 2003, the CMRI
carried an article entitled “On the Question of Natural Family
Planning,” again promoting that couples can limit the size of
their family by means of the Natural Family Planning birth control
method. Natural Family Planning is a sinful method of birth
control which subordinates the primary purpose of marriage (the
procreation and education of children) to secondary ends, by a
deliberate attempt to phase new life out of existence by means of the
rhythm method.

Pope
Pius XI adds teaches in Casti Connubii that the “sacredness
of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that
is holy, arises… from its purpose which is the begetting
and education of children for God” and that all
“Christian parents must also understand
that they are destined… to propagate and preserve the human
race on earth”. Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament of
the Bible also connects the will to bear children to salvation,
teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through
child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and
sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15) The
Holy Fathers of the Church all agreewith the
Holy Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church in this regard.

St.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus
other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.”
(The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter
X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)

St.
Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE
WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.”
(W. A. Jurgens, TheFaith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3:
2233)

St.
Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It
is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole
will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is
another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within
the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as
long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter
17.--What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With
Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)

St.
Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book 1, Section 20; 40, A.D. 393:
“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and
Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give
him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother
seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any
sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? …
He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his
God and of his wife].”

Pope
St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of
chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not
take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the
sake of begetting children. And since this observance is
found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it
be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.”
(Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)

Athenagoras
the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore,
having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life,
even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife
whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and
that onlyfor
the purpose of having children.For
as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the
harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of
children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.”
(A
Plea For the Christians,
Chapter XXXIII.--Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)

St.
Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The
Penitential of Finnian
#46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in
marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin,
and
[marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for
the sake of children,
as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’
that is, in unity of the flesh for
the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the
flesh.”

St.
Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law
of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have
relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep
yourself from relations of pleasure.”

St.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy
Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should
take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but
only for the birth of children.”
(The
Stromata
or Miscellanies,
Book II, Chapter XVIII.--The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics,
and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)

St.
Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus
the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures,
taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve
lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight
of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in
copulation only to propagate progeny.”

Lactantius,
The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no
adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were
known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of
procreation is condemned by God.”

Lactantius,
The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter LXI, Of the
Passions, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is
implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children;
but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure
only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and
debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions,
therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into
their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even
though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.”

Lactantius,
The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let
lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to
the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for
pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which
is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so
hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.”
(Chapter LXII.--Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)

Apostolic
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “And
fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not
being made use of for the procreation of children, but
entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency,
and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the
laws;” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and
Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII)

Apostolic
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “When the
natural purgations do appear in the wives, let not their husbands
approach them, out of regard to the children to be begotten; for the
law has forbidden it, for it says: "Thou shalt not come near thy
wife when she is in her separation." [Lev. xviii. 19; Ezek.
xviii. 6.] Nor, indeed, let them frequent their wives’ company
when they are with child. For they do this not for the
begetting of children, but for the sake of pleasure. Now a
lover of God ought not to be a lover of pleasure.” (The
Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V,
Chap. XXVIII)

St.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits
esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to "be
fruitful and multiply." [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them,
however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender
themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual
relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the
word of Ezekiel: "Put away your fornications." [Eze. 43:9]
Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain
times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is
to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.”
(The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter
X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)

St.
Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For
necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of
children] is free from blame, and itself is alone
worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity[of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”

Pope
St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be
admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the
purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to
immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to
the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do
not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed
its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent
prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the
admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, "Pastoral
Care," Part 3, Chapter 27, in "Ancient Christian Writers,"
No. 11, pp. 188-189)

Pope
St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation
of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not
of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for
the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.”
(Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of
the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)

St.
Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the
wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to
misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for
example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the
begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual
pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good.
When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her.
And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s
conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love,
17; Philokalia 2:67-68)

St.
Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three
things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness
of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire
something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is
unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a
purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on
Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)

St.
John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children
is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on
account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by
lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be
inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have
no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the
soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better.
"Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators
and adulterers God will judge" [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John
of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)

Gratian,
Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on
Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage
is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is
damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is
conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the
sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a
wife.”

Venerable
Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must
examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other
persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for
carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have
sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A
Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers
prayers and meditations, p. 362)

For
a full discussion of why Natural Family Planning is evil, and for
many more quotes from the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church,
consult the article on our website:

7.The CMRI has been sedevacantist (that is, they correctly hold
that the Chair of Peter is vacant and that Benedict XVI is not the
pope) for a long time; yet, they still administer Holy
Communion to persons who reject the sedevacantist position.
And according to various persons who have attended their Masses
for years, the CMRI priests say little to nothing about the issue
that Benedict XVI is not the pope from the pulpit.

Therefore,
while the CMRI’s publication states that their priests do not
hold that Benedict XVI is the pope, this belief is not enforced at
their chapels. Hence, as far as many people who
are unaware of these issues and attending their chapels are
concerned, the CMRI does
hold that Benedict XVI is the pope, since they say little to nothing
about it and do not require adherence to the dogmatic truths
surrounding this issue (namely, that a person who says we shouldn’t
convert non-Catholics is outside the Church). They also allow
non-sedevacantist nuns to join their society and receive sacraments
from them as their sisters in Christ.

As
stated, sedevacantism is the theological position held by traditional
Catholics who recognize the Novus Ordo Church as a non-Catholic
modernist religion, officially brought into being at the Second
Vatican Council (1962–1965) and the leaders of that sect to be
Antipopes, leaving the seat of St. Peter (who is regarded by
Catholics as the first Bishop of Rome) vacant at the present time.
Most proponents of the position regard the current antipapacy to have
been in place since 1958 until the present time (there have been
others in history).

There
have been 260 valid popes in Catholic history, and more than 40
antipopes (i.e., men who posed as popes but had not been truly
elected). There have been more than 200 papal vacancies (periods
without a pope).

Sedevacantist
should be applied only to those who believe that there is at present
no reigning pope, but it is frequently used to include groups, known
as conclavists, who have attempted to elect popes (or antipopes) of
their own. By definition, sedevacantists oppose conclavism.

The
word sedevacantism is derived from the Latin phrase sede
vacante, which means "seat vacant," or "with the
see (chair) being vacant" and is used in Vatican documents in
the interval between the death or abdication of a pope and the
election of a successor.

A
sede vacante period occurs between the death or resignation of a Pope
and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant,
and is called the Interregnum. This Latin term means between the
reign (of one Pope and another). It is a period governed by papal
law, which admits of no changes to Church governance, or to the
spiritual or material patrimony of St. Peter, save the election of
his successor.

Hence,
while the CMRI claim in their publications to be free from the errors
and heresies which necessarily arise from obstinate adherence
to the Vatican II Counter Church, if they don’t preach about
this publicly at their chapels, they are – in reality – a
group which accepts Benedict XVI; for they tolerate that heretical
position at their chapel and give Holy Communion to persons who have
rejected the information demonstrating that Benedict XVI is not the
pope.

For
these of these reasons mentioned above, no one aware of this
information can support the CMRI, be in religious communion with them
or receive the sacraments from them in any way under pain of grave
sin and denying the Catholic Faith.

EVIDENCE
FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST POSITION

According
to reports, a ‘traditionalist priest’, who for a long
time has been closely affiliated with Nicholas Gruner, had taken the
sedevacantist position. Apparently Francis’ newest document
(which contains a number of massive heresies) was the clincher. Paul
Leonard Kramer allegedly posted this on his Facebook page:

“Pope”
Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people
in special regard because their covenant with God has never been
revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy,
directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius
III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught
by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set
forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to
wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and
“abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a
“pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy
flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic
faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in
many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert
Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent
III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a
manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases
to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly
elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the
Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the
visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not
a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the
supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null &
void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of
manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that
it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is
not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It
is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly
expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying
it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St.
Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who
would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio
plainly fits the description.

Now,
it must be made clear that Kramer is not a true Catholic. He holds
heresies on the salvation dogma; he was ordained in the invalid New
Rite of Ordination; and he has not (as far as we know) rejected the
previous Vatican II antipopes. He also doesn’t seem to realize
that the heresy he mentions in his post (which convinced him that
Francis is not pope) was taught in Vatican II itself and by the other
previous Vatican II antipopes.

For
instance, Antipope John Paul II has repeatedly repudiated this dogma,
a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, defined
infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearly by Pope
Benedict XIV.

In
an address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, Antipope John
Paul II spoke of quote, “the Old Covenant, never
revoked by God…”

Antipope
John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph
121: “… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

In
2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The
Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.
This book rejects the dogma that the Old Covenant has ceased. It
teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, and that the Jews’
wait for the Coming of the Messiah (which was part of the Old
Covenant) is also still valid. It teaches that Jesus doesn’t
have to be seen as the prophesied Messiah; it is possible to see Him,
as the Jews do, as not the Messiah and not the Son of God.

In
section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in
the Christian Bible states:

“Jewish
messianic expectation is not in vain...”

In
section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in
the Christian Bible states:

“…to
read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit
acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the
full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of
its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in
Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and
ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a
possible one…”

So,
according to this Vatican book, Christians can and ought to admit
that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the
prophesied Messiah is a possible one! The preface for
this totally heretical book was written by none other than Joseph
Ratzinger, the now Benedict
XVI.

This
is antichrist!

1
John 2:22: “... he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is
antichrist…”

Heresy
is a rejection of a dogma of the Catholic Faith; apostasy is a
rejection of the entire Christian Faith. This book contains both
heresy and apostasy, fully endorsed by Benedict XVI.

When
Vatican II teaches that Jews, despite not belonging to the Church,
are not to be considered as rejected by God, that means they remain
in a valid covenant with God and can be saved. That’s also how
the apostates in the Vatican II sect understood and implemented
Nostra Aetate. Francis’ heresy on the Old Covenant is simply a
reiteration of the doctrine of Nostra Aetate and the statements of
the previous antipopes. It is also a further formalization of that
heresy as the official doctrine of the Counter Church, for Francis
teaches it openly in an Apostolic Exhortation addressed to the entire
Church.

Vatican
II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church
is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as
rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed
from the holy scriptures.”

Without
even going into details, it should be obvious to all that the
statement of Nostra Aetate (#4) is heretical. Jews are
rejected by God, because all who reject Jesus Christ are denied by
God. This is a truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred
Scripture.

Matthew
10:33: “But he that shall deny me before men,
I will also deny before my Father who is in
heaven.”

The
word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. Look it up
in the dictionary. Therefore, Vatican II and its antipopes is
denying the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33: he who
denies Our Lord is rejected by Him. Thus, without even going farther
into detail, one should easily see that Vatican II teaches blatant
heresy in Nostra Aetate #4.

But
this heresy gets even worse when one considers that the Council of
Florence Bull Cantate Dominois a dogmatic definition on
individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy
Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews,
etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a
view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the
Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and
rejected. Note: the Council is not merely saying
that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected and condemned,
but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is condemned
and rejected!

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex
cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the
words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches
one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church]
condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to
be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever
holds opposing or contrary views.”

By
the way, Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium contains
numerous other heresies as well, such as the heresy that “the
followers of Islam… together with us they adore the one,
merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day”
(Evangelii Gaudium, # 252) and that “Non-Christians [such as
atheists and pagans], by God’s gracious initiative, when they
are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by
the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal
mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension
of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs” (Evangelii
Gaudium, # 254). Concerning the Jews, Francis went on to say: “As
Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do
we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols [false
gods] and to serve the true God [i.e., Francis says Jews are not to
be considered to be as those who turn from false gods in order to
serve the true God Jesus Christ and the Trinity since he already
believes they serve the true God!]… With them, we
believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them
we accept his revealed word” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 247)

Further,
in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,”
Francis professes that it’s admirable for Muslims to
participate in daily Islamic prayers and religious services (252). He
professes that non-Christians are justified by the grace of God
(254), directly contrary to the Catholic profession of faith and
Catholic dogma that only Christians, that is, those with the catholic
faith can be justified. And, (254) of that document, Francis also
speaks of non-Christian rites, signs and expressions, in other words,
the false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan
religions, as “God’s working” and things which “the
Holy Spirit raises up.” And in his encyclical “Evangelii
Gaudium” (255), Francis also professes that Religious Freedom,
whereby everyone has the right to promote any religious view in
public, is to be viewed a fundamental human right: “the
importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental
human right. This includes “the freedom to choose the religion
which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in
public” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 255).

But
there were many other heresies taught by the antipopes on various
topics that were just as explicit as the one Kramer finds so
appalling. He should have been convinced a long time ago. In fact,
years ago someone we know personally spoke with Kramer. In one of
those conversations he expressed doubts about the validity of John
Paul II. However, his rejection of Antipope Francis is interesting
because it’s another example of how even some of the most
obstinate false traditionalists, who have misled so many for years,
are now finding Francis so indefensible that they must reject him as
an antipope. It’s a big embarrassment to the false
traditionalist crowd.

Over
the years Kramer has said some good things. We hope he comes around
to the true positions on all the issues. His paragraph is an example
of how simple it really should be for people to come to the correct
conclusion on Francis (i.e., that he’s without any doubt a
heretical non-Catholic antipope) if they are being even slightly
honest about the situation.

Mark Pivarunas of CMRI Embarrasses Himself

Some
time ago Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI stated that people who deny
‘baptism of desire’ aren’t ‘competent’
to deal with the issue. Referring to members of Most
Holy Family Monastery
and to their correct understanding on the issue, he also said they
are ‘false prophets’ and used by the Devil (which is true
in the sense that they lead people back to the jaws of the heretics
and their sacrilegious, blasphemous communion; see above link). Mark
considers it diabolical and soul-destroying to maintain that no one
enters Heaven without being reborn of water and the Spirit. In
support of his position, he cited the teaching of St. Alphonsus on
‘baptism of desire’ as if it’s definitive and ends
the debate. Pivarunas apparently thinks that St. Alphonsus’
explanation of ‘baptism of blowing’ (baptismus
flaminis)
supports his view. In making that statement and argument, Pivarunas
not only demonstrates his complete lack of familiarity with the
details of this issue, but he embarrasses himself.

The
CMRI, its priests and
leader, Mark Pivarunas,
holds that souls can be saved in false religions, even in religions
that does not desire baptism, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism,
etc, as this conversation with another heretical CMRI priest proves:
CMRI
priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics
(video).
The priest confirmed what’s been mentioned and proven many
times: the CMRI (like other groups
which support ‘baptism of desire’) holds that souls can
be saved in false religions. They believe ‘invincible
ignorance’ can save anyone in any situation. They deny the
defined Catholic dogma that one must have the ‘Catholic faith’
(which involves belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) to be saved.
They are heretics who don’t possess an ounce of faith in Christ
or His truth. Also, as the aforementioned conversation showed, the
priest of the CMRI was not even familiar with the teaching of the
Council of Florence. That’s another example of how Pivarunas
and
his
group doesn’t understand Catholic teaching.

Bishop
Mark A. Pivarunas, The Decrees of Vatican II Compared with Past
Church Teachings: “The attitude of the Catholic Church
towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jews has always been clear —
there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even
supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he
must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of
desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that
these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The
Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite
strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of
Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the
Catholic Church throughout history. The Council Fathers of Vatican
II, however, have not only implied the salvation of heretics and
schismatics, but also praised these other false religions in their
“Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions.” The opening paragraph of this declaration [of
Vatican II] strongly suggests that, yes, salvation may be found
outside of the true fold.”

First,
Mark Pivarunas, as the leader of the CMRI sect and editor in chief of
their heretical magazine, The
Reign of Mary,
doesn’t even believe in what he writes. For it is a fact that
his own sect publishes official and formal newsletters denying this
exact
dogma on No
Salvation Outside the Church.

Bishop
Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s
Magazine The
Reign of Mary,
Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The
doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be
understood in the sense of knowingly
outside the Church…
But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question,
why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula,
‘Outside the Church
no salvation’? For
the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary.
How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the
Church? The
‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the
instruction of Catholics, since
it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the
true Church, but
rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit
of those outside the one ark of salvation.”

All
of the CRMI priests and religious I have asked this question has said
that non-Catholics who die in their false religions can be saved
without the Catholic faith, and many of them even openly and publicly
teach that members of false religions can be saved, or at least, when
they are questioned about it.

Also,
when Pivarunas says: “It is evident, according to Catholic
theology, that these false and immoral religions
are opposed to the natural law” – it is clear that his
words are ambiguous, and that
they
can be interpreted in
different ways;
for
are “these false
and immoral
religions”
only opposed to the natural law, but the believers
not necessarily breaking the natural law? And in what sense are the
religions opposed to the natural law? He said: “Even supposing
a person
were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he
must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of
desire).” So the person must follow the natural law, and then
he can be saved by
an implicit baptism of desire
even though the religion itself is opposed the natural law?

By
the way, Pivarunas and his subjects have been rebuked many times by
many people on this heresy, and yet, never has Pivarunas denounced
any of his subjects believing in this exact heresy or demanded that
they recant their heresy, nor has he or anyone else in his sect ever
recanted or abjured from the fact that this heresy has been publicly
taught in their public and official newsletters.

It’s
repeatedly been documented that almost all traditionalist priests
deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. It’s
also been pointed out that almost all of these dogma deniers
sometimes make statements which seem to indicate that they hold the
dogma; when, in fact, they don’t. All of this is on display in
Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas’ statement above. Notice that
Pivarunas made statements which absolutely seemed to indicate that he
holds strictly to the necessity of the Catholic Faith and Jesus
Christ for salvation. Very shortly after making these statements,
however, Pivarunas proceeded to deny the dogma that people
“invincibly ignorant of the true Church” can be saved and
thus reveal that he doesn’t believe anything he just said.

MHFM
testimony, Questions, Answers and Comments: “…the
CMRI…deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation,
as explained in the section about them our website and in our book.
They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject
Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius
(editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter
asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone
should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a
notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very
public fashion.”

MHFM
testimony, The heretic Tom Droleskey:
“All the priests (and a nun) of CMRI with whom I have spoken
have indicated non-Catholics, including Jews who reject Christ, can
be saved. This is what they believe.”

Second,
in citing St. Alphonsus’ opinion as if it proves his position,
Pivarunas embarrasses himself. That’s because, as Most Holy
Family Monastery correctly proved in the article below, St.
Alphonsus’ explanation is untenable even if you accept ‘baptism
of desire’ (BOD).

As
the article linked to above shows, St. Alphonsus’ explanation
of the issue was not only riddled with errors (he cites the wrong
portion of the Council of Trent), but he admits that ‘baptism
of desire’ does not even provide the grace of baptism/spiritual
rebirth. That’s a big problem because the Council of Trent
declared that everyone must have the grace of baptism/spiritual
rebirth in order to be justified. To put it another way: St.
Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that ‘baptism of desire’
doesn’t provide the grace of first justification.
That’s what the article proves. Yet, the truly
foolish and obstinate proponents of ‘baptism of desire’
(such as Mark Pivarunas) still haven’t figured it out, even
after they explained it for them. That’s precisely why
defenders of BOD, who continue to promote St. Alphonsus’
opinion on the issue in the face of the facts, don’t merely
contradict Catholic dogma, they make fools out of themselves. They
demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with the details of the
issue, and they perpetuate a position that has been thoroughly
refuted and debunked.

St.
Alphonsus was not infallible. His position on ‘baptism of
desire’ was simply false and it must be rejected by all
Catholics. Nevertheless, Pivarunas still hasn’t realized that
St. Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that ‘baptism of desire’
doesn’t even justify and that his position would have to be
rejected even if you accept ‘baptism of desire.’
Pivarunas’ lack of familiarity with the relevant material,
combined with his inability to grasp the ramifications of his
assertions, demonstrates that he’s incompetent and unequipped
to deal with the fine points of these theological issues. Despite his
profound ignorance and incompetence, the heretic pontificates
(literally) as if he possesses some special authority, when, in
reality, he is just a guy who got himself ordained and then
consecrated a bishop.

Mark
Pivarunas denies Catholic teaching and believes that souls can be
saved in false religions. He’s a heretic and a false shepherd
who leads souls to Hell. He is also an apostle of birth control,
a vigorous defender of Natural Family Planning. His group even
endorses methods of Natural Family Planning that involve
taking steps to physically alter a woman’s body chemistry to
avoid conception. The article linked to below also
soundly refutes Pivarunas’ argument that Natural Family
Planning must be permissible because certain churchmen before Vatican
II (e.g., members of the Sacred Penitentiary) allegedly approved
primitive forms of it.

See
our article on Natural
Family Planning
and Objection 13 that deals with the objection brought forward by Mark. A. Pivarunas of CMRI.

MARK FURTHER DISPLAYS
HIS INCOMPETENCE

As
a further display of his incompetence, Pivarunas also stated that St.
Alphonsus taught ‘implicit desire,’ as if the saint
favored the notion that people don’t need to have faith in
Jesus Christ and the Trinity to be saved. No, he didn’t. As was
explained in the article on his ‘baptism of desire’
error, when St. Alphonsus mentions the ‘implicit’ desire
for baptism, he’s referring to people who believe
in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries
of Catholic faith), but aren’t aware of water baptism or
have not expressed that desire for water baptism in words.
Again, the ‘implicit desire’ to which he refers is an
implicit desire for water baptism, not an implicit
desire for faith in Christ. St. Alphonsus did not believe that anyone
(ignorant or not) could be saved without faith in the essential
mysteries of Catholicism: the Trinity and the Incarnation. However,
he did wrongly think that one who believed in the Trinity and the
Incarnation could be saved without water baptism by an implicit
desire for water baptism. Nevertheless, BOD heretics abuse Alphonsus’
passage in which he uses the word ‘implicit’ – a
passage that already contains numerous errors. They falsely assert
that by ‘implicit desire’ St. Alphonsus taught the heresy
of ‘implicit faith in Christ’ (which can save Jews,
Muslims, etc.), when he did not.

Mark
still hasn’t learned the distinction between an ‘implicit
desire’ for
water baptism
(which
requires explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity)
and an implicit desire for faith in Christ (the completely heretical
notion that souls can be saved in non-Christian religions, which he
and his group hold). The two are not the same. Perhaps Mark is
incapable of understanding the distinction. St. Alphonsus did not
hold the latter, but the former. The fact that St. Alphonsus (with
St. Thomas and all the saints) believed that no one could be saved
without knowing the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith (and
thus rejected the CMRI’s heretical position on salvation
through ‘invincible ignorance’) is proven below.

Here’s
a very interesting new quote from St. Alphonsus which refutes the
heresy that people can be saved who are ignorant of the Gospel, the
Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries of the Catholic
faith). This is important because many baptism of desire heretics in
our day – who believe that souls can be saved in false
religions and without belief in Christ – falsely assert that
saints such as St. Alphonsus agreed with them. This is totally false.

This
is obviously not to suggest that saints, such as St. Alphonsus, were
correct about everything; rather it is prove, once again, that not
one saint held the heresy of “invincible ignorance,” the
idea that ignorant non-Catholics can be saved in false religions or
without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. This heresy of
invincible ignorance is held by almost all people who believe in
“baptism of desire” today. Here’s the quote from
St. Alphonsus’ book, The History of Heresies.

St.
Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457:
“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels
who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith,
cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient
proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a
means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St.
Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in
the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of
natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked,
we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal
inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would
send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to
Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St.
Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use
of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace
consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of
the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel
cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of
nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive,
through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient
to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

As
we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of
St. Thomas Aquinas below, in which he denies that any soul who
is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved. Rather, if there is a person
who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God
will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection: “‘It
is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among
wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.’
St. Thomas replies: ‘It
is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with
what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part
there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns
evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to
him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would
send some preacher of the faith to him…’”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man
born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending
a teacher to him.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a
man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he
culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

In
the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that
all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of
Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St.
Thomas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7: “After
grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are
bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ,
chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church,
and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to
the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint
Thomas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8. “And
consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to
explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

Therefore,
St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, like all of the fathers of the Church,
rejected the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance”
saving those who die as non-Catholics. Their speculation and
erroneous teaching on baptism of blood/desire only regarded those
who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the most essential
mysteries of Catholic faith). And this point really shows the
dishonesty of modern heretics, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and
St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their
heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by
“baptism of desire.”

Here
is another important quote. This important quote absolutely proves
that St. Alphonsus, like all the Doctors of the Church, rejected the
false idea that souls who are “invincibly ignorant” of
the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith can be saved.

St.
Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic
Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief
of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and
the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as
a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a
person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according
to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these
articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be
saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

Notice
that St. Alphonsus is explicitly discussing the concept of invincible
ignorance. He is explicitly addressing the question of whether souls
who are “inculpably ignorant” of Our Lord and the Trinity
can be saved, AND HE DENIES IT. He affirms that only
those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic
Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved.
This is a very important quotation because the heretical idea that
souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in Traditional
circles, and is taught by the SSPX,
SSPV,
CMRI,
etc. These groups teach the false and heretical idea that explicit
belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means
without which no adult can be saved.

St.
Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you
in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of
the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans,
among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all
are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori,
Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)

Thus,
as we can see, Mark Pivarunas has no idea what he’s
talking about. He’s ignorant and incompetent. Yet, he
presides over a group of alleged traditionalists and he pretends to
possess authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Simply
put, he’s a faithless individual in whom the Devil found an
effective instrument to encourage birth control and corrupt belief in
the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith. Pivarunas is a
heretical, non-Catholic disgrace – a false shepherd leading
souls to Hell.

Besides
their obstinate promotion of St. Alphonsus’ false opinion, the
heretical CMRI promotes other false arguments on the issue. Actually,
they employ a devilish combination of lies, distortions, misquotes,
half-truths and fallible arguments to deceive people and promote
their false position. None of those arguments withstand scrutiny.

The
truth is that the Catholic Church does not teach ‘baptism
of desire.’ It has never taught it, which is why the defenders
of BOD must always resort to fallible documents and opinions to make
their arguments. Rather, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that
there is only one baptism of water, and that no
one is saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit,as
it is written in John 3:5. That’s the teaching of the
Catholic Church. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you
the truth. The Catholic teaching on this point is proven by the
quotes below.

The
obstinate proponents of ‘baptism of desire,’ while they
think they are of safe ground promoting the position that one can be
saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit, are actually doing
that which is criminal according to Catholic teaching. Their
spiritual crime involves obstinately preaching contrary to the one
and only dogmatic rule of faith on the matter.

Pope
Clement V, The
Council
of Vienne,
1311-1312: “Besides, one
baptismregenerating
all who are baptized in Christmust
be faithfully confessed by all
just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which
celebrated in water
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly
the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

Pope
Clement V, The
Council
of Vienne,
1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars
and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt,
outside
of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved(salvatur),
one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one
is the baptism of all.”

Consider
these two dogmatic statements from The
Council of Vienne
on baptism as a unit. All in the Church (outside of which no one at
all is saved) have one and the same baptism; and that one baptism
(which all in the Church, outside of which no one at all is saved,
have) is of water.

Pope
Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,”
Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the
spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments;
through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the
Church. And since death entered the universe through the first
man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the
Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the
kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of
this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope
Paul III, The Council of Trent,
Can. 5 on the Sacrament
of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the
sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let
him be anathema.”

Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the
admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith,
one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the
notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any
religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ
Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’
(Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather
with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish
forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’(Athanasian Creed).”

Pope
St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, The
Council
of Chalcedon,
451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches,
that sanctification
by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood
(1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s
words, knowing
that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited
from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the
precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot
(1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John
the apostle: and
the
blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin
(1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This
is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who
conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of
God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood,
not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is
truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give
testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one.
(1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN
OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION
AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.
NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Protocol 122/49 (Suprema
haec sacra)

About
four months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard
Cushing, the apostate “Archbishop” of Boston, the
so-called Holy Office issued a document on August 8, 1949. Actually,
the document was a letter addressed to Bishop Cushing, and signed by
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known to most as
Protocol No. 122/49. It is also called Suprema haec sacra and
the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. It is one of the most crucial
documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the faith. Protocol
122/49 was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See
(Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news
organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.

Protocol
122/49 has no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is
not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the
authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani
who wrote the letter, and “Cardinal” Ottaviani who also
signed it) to one archbishop – which is none. The
letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy,
deceit, ambiguity and betrayal. Immediately after the publication of
Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical
headline:

VATICAN
RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds
No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

This
was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by
Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter.
Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly said, held the “No
Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this
fateful letter, the enemies of the dogma and the Church appeared to
have been vindicated and the defenders of the dogma seemed to have
been vanquished. The problem for the apparent victors, however, was
that this document was nothing more than a letter from two heretical
so-called cardinals of the Holy Office, who had already embraced the
heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate “archbishop”
in Boston. Some may be surprised that I describe “Cardinal”
Ottaviani as heretical, since he is considered by many to have been
orthodox. If his signature on the Protocol isn’t enough proof
for his heresy, consider that he signed all of the Vatican II
documents and aligned himself with the post-Vatican II revolution.

It’s
interesting that even Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known
editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican
II, who was unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced
to admit that it’s not infallible:

Msgr.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation,
1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema
haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]…
is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not
infallible, document. That
is to say, the teachings
contained in Suprema
haec sacra are not to
be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular
document.”

In
other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema haec
sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents;
but it isn’t, as we will see. Fenton is simply wrong when he
says that Suprema haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative.
Suprema haec sacra is neither authoritative nor infallible,
but heretical and false.

Since
almost the entire public was (and is) given the impression that
Protocol 122/49 represented the official teaching of the Catholic
Church, it constituted the selling out of Jesus Christ, His doctrine
and His Church to the world, a selling out that had to take place
before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II. By Protocol 122/49 and
the persecution of Fr. Feeney, the public was given the impression
that the Catholic Church had now overturned a 20 centuries’ old
dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is definitely necessary
for salvation. And even to this day, if one were to ask almost
every so-called Catholic priest in the world about the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, he would probably be
answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and
Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall
the specific names and dates. Try it, I know from experience. A huge
amount of basically all of the Novus Ordo priests who know anything
about the issue will use Protocol 122/49 and the “condemnation”
of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic, antichrist,
anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic
religions and without the Catholic Faith. These are the fruits of the
infamous Protocol 122/49. And by their fruits you shall know them
(Mt. 7:16).

Now
let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among those things which the Church has
always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that
infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no
salvation outside the Church.
However,
this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church
herself understands it.”

Let’s
stop it right there. Already it’s clear that the author of the
Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept something
different than simply “that infallible statement by which we
are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” The
author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside
the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words
themselves state and declare. If the author were not preparing the
reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of the
dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply
written: “This dogma must be understood as the Church has
defined it, exactly as the words state and declare.”

Compare
the Protocol’s attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope
Gregory XVI’s treatment of the same issue in his encyclical
Summo Iugiter Studio.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter
Studio, May 27, 1832, on no
salvation outside the Church: “Finally
some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and
others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion,
but that even heretics may
attain eternal life…
You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that
article of faith which these dare to deny,
namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for
salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which
are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers,
We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says:
‘The holy universal
Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in
her and asserts that all
who are outside of her will not be saved.’
Official acts of the Church
proclaim the same dogma. Thus,
in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of
Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There
is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one
is saved.’
Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession
of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin
churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We
thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our
instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting
suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and
well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable
audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this
truth with many testimonies.”

Pope
Gregory XVI does not try to to explain this dogma away, by saying,
“However, this dogma must be understood in
that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as
does the heretical Protocol 122/49. No, he unequivocally affirms that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Throughout
the whole encyclical, Gregory XVI does not fail to repeatedly affirm
the true and literal meaning of the phrase Outside the Church There
is No Salvation, without qualification or exception, as it had been
defined. Father Feeney and his allies in defense of the dogma were
reiterating exactly what Gregory XVI officially taught above.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if
Protocol 122/49 was written to “correct” the
understanding of Father Feeney on Outside the Church There is No
Salvation (which it was), then Protocol 122/49 was also “correcting”
the understanding of Pope Gregory XVI and all of the infallible
statements on the topic for 20 centuries.

Also,
notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic
definition of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate
his position and literal understanding of the formula Outside the
Church There is No Salvation. Throughout the whole document, Protocol
122/49 makes no reference to any
of the dogmatic definitions on this topic. This is because Pope
Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a
dogma that exists is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared;
while the authors of the Protocol, being heretics, did not believe
that a dogma is to be understood exactly as it was once declared.
That explains why Pope Gregory cited exactly what Holy Mother Church
has once declared and the authors of the Protocol did not.

Pope
Pius IX, First Vatican Council,
Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith and Reason: “Hence, also, that
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church
has once declared; and
there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious
name of a deeper understanding.”

If
the understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation was not clear from the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the
infallible definitions on the topic), then a 1949 letter of
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not going
to give it to us! And if no exceptions or qualifications to this
dogma were understood at the time of the definitions – nor at
the time of Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for
exceptions to come into our understanding of the dogma after that
point (e.g., in 1949), because the dogma had already been defined and
taught long before. Discovery of a new understanding of the
dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as
it had been defined. But define new dogma is indeed what the Protocol
tried to do. I continue with the Protocol.

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one
holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be
incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which
is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar...
Therefore, no one will be saved
who, knowingthe Church to have been
divinely established by Christ,
nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience
from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

Here
the Protocol begins to enter into its new explanation of the
dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, but in a
diabolically clever manner. The ambiguity lies in the fact that this
statement is true: no one who, knowing the
Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to
submit to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved. But everyone
reading this document is also given the clear impression by this
language that some people, who have unknowingly failed to
submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved. This is
heretical and would actually make it counterproductive to convince
people that the Catholic Church is divinely established!

Compare
the dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church with the addition to
the dogma by Protocol 122/49.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and
proclaim to every human
creature that they by
absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

The
Addition by Protocol 122/49:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, no one will be saved who,
knowing
the Church to have been divinely established
by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds
obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

The
reader can easily see that the intended meaning of Protocol 122/49 is
a departure from the understanding of the dogma which Holy Mother
Church has once declared. No one can deny this. The dogma of the
necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation has gone
from application to every human creature (Boniface
VIII) to “those knowing the Church to have been divinely
established” (Protocol 122/49), again making it foolish to
convince people that the Church is divinely established. I continue
with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed that the
effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation
which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in
certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and
longing... The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church,
in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that
one may obtain eternal salvation, it
is not always required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at
least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

Here
one detects another denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a
departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church
has once declared. Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope
Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the
underlined portions.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra: “The Holy
Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of
those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal
life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless
before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and
that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body
(ecclesiastici corporis)
is so strong that only for
those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fasts,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian
soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has
practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be
saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.”

We
see that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of
incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis,
which is heresy!

It
was necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom
and unity” (Eugene IV), but now it is “not
always required to be incorporated into the
Church actually as a member” (Protocol 122/49). The defined
dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the ecclesiastical
body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied. This is heresy!

Those
who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are
simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.
Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His
teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why
it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in
Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the
mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.
St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I
believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that
unless I believed, I should not understand.”

All
the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by
the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other
grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to
cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the
Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based
on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the
things which have been made, and by the natural light of human
reason.

St.
Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from
Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain
the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is
manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the
invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power
also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone
can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who
is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it
contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have
carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the
tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the
snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t
the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is
worshiping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul
says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in
reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without
baptism.

St.
Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had
lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard
it without belief.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection:
It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or
among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the
faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the characteristic
of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for
salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the
case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of
natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal
inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of
the faith to him…”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born
among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending
a teacher to him.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a
man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless
he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

All
baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a
Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide. The
Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or
a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter
and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,”
1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a
deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic
can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has
the intention of doing what the Church does.”
(Denzinger 696)

The
Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and
schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them
are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the
infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or
schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism
from making him a member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament
of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because
they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not
to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This
means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those
baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers,
are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject
to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does
this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing
his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she
becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the
Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she
obstinately rejects any
teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We
ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the
Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is
Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN
OBSTINATELY SEPARATED FROM THE
FAITH of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask
whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of
the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the
obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

So,
one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims,
pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism
and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost, whether
adults or children. 2) Among those who are baptized validly as
infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects
of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership
(which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any
Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the Natural Law or
the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the
teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly
taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith
and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately
separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

There
is no way on earth that the teaching of Protocol 122/49 is compatible
with the teaching of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII. To
accept, believe or promote the Protocol is to act contrary to these
definitions.

I
continue with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “However, this desire need not always be
explicit, as it is in catechumens; but
when a person is involved in invincible ignorance,
God accepts also an implicit
desire, so called because it
is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

Here
the heresy comes out quite bluntly. People who don’t hold
the Catholic Faith – who are “involved in invincible
ignorance” – can also be united by “implicit”
desire, as long as “a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.” And I remind the reader that Protocol
122/49 was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s
statement that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. That is to
say, the Protocol was written to specifically distinguish its own
teaching from Fr. Feeney’s affirmation that all who die as
non-Catholics are lost, which shows that the Protocol was teaching
that people who die as non-Catholics and in false religions can be
saved. Thus, the Protocol’s statement above is quite obviously,
and nothing other than, the heresy that one can be saved in any
religion or in no religion, as long as morality is maintained.

Fr.
Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The
Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218:
“Inculpable or invincible
ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.
To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state
of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to
have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine
faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope
in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm
purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now,
these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc.,
which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can
never be supplied by
invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the
preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow
sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says
St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’
(De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).”

Compare
the above passage from the Protocol with the following dogmatic
definitions.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian Creed”, ex
cathedra: “Whoever
wishes to be saved, before all things it
is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith.
Unless a person keeps this
faith whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish
eternally.”

Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent,
“Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex
cathedra: “This
true Catholic faith,
outside of which no
one can be
saved… I now
profess and truly hold…”

Pope
Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos,
March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This
faith of the Catholic Church,
without which no one
can be saved, and which of my
own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope
Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Session 2, Profession of Faith: “This
true Catholic faith,
outside of which none
can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold…”

I
continue with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, “Protocol
122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same
encyclical letter, when most
affectionately inviting to unity those
who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church(qui
ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non
pertinent), he mentions
those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by
a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these
he by no means excludes from eternal salvation,
but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which,
‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’
since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to
salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’”

In
the process of giving its false analysis of Pope Pius XII’s
encyclical Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches
that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the
Church can be saved. What’s interesting about this
heretical passage in Protocol 122/49 is that even Msgr. Fenton (one
of its greatest defenders) admits that one cannot say that the
Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body.

Msgr.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation,
1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the
most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the
Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered
around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’
of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain
the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church
itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term
‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural
virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there
were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’
of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’
it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’
Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of
this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too
frequently infected with serious error.”

Hence,
to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body, as
Suprema haec sacra (the Protocol) does, is to say that it is
not necessary to belong to the Church. Therefore, by its statement
above, Protocol 122/49 taught the heresy that it is not necessary
to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved,
the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

Pope
Pius XII, Humani
Generis
(#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine,
explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on
the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of
Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some
reduce to a meaningless formula the
necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal
salvation.”

This
is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of
Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the
teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is
heretical. They both deny the necessity of “belonging”
to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Pope
Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council,
Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex
cathedra: “For, regulars
and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong
to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved,
and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting
that, belonging to the one
same body, they also have
the one same will…”

Less
than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was
published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney
was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949. Father
Feeney stood strong against the heretics’ attempts to beat him
down and get him to submit to the heresy that non-Catholics can be
saved. Referring to the August 8th letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani (Protocol 122/49), Father Feeney rightly
stated: “it can be considered as having established a two-sided
policy in order to propagate error.”

The
reality was that Father Feeney’s expulsion from the Jesuit
Order had no validity. The men who expelled him and the clerics who
were against him were automatically expelled from the Catholic Church
for adhering to the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be
saved. This is similar to the situation in the 5th
century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to
preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful
reacted, accused Nestorius of heresy and denounced him as a heretic
who was outside the Catholic Church. And Nestorius was later
condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Here is what Pope St.
Celestine I stated about those who had been excommunicated by
Nestorius after he began to preach heresy.

Pope
St. Celestine I, 5th Century: “The
authority of Our Apostolic See has determined
that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or
excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after
the latter began to preach heresyshall not be considered
deposed or excommunicated.
For he who had defected
from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone
whatsoever.”

Pope
St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that a public
heretic is a person with no authority to depose, excommunicate or
expel. The quote is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work
of St. Robert Bellarmine. This explains why all of the persecution
against Father Feeney (expulsion, interdiction, etc.) had no
validity, because he was right and those who were against him were
wrong. He defended the dogma that there is no salvation outside the
Church, while his opponents defended the heresy that there is
salvation outside the Church.

St.
Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church,De
Romano Pontifice:
“A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per
se)
ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. This
is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers
who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

Things
between Father Feeney and the heretics in Boston remained unchanged
until September 14, 1952. At this point, Richard Cushing, the
so-called Archbishop of Boston, demanded that Father Feeney retract
his “interpretation” of the dogma – which means
retract the dogma – and make an explicit profession of
submission to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter (Protocol 122/49).
With four witnesses, Father Feeney presented himself before Cushing.
He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani “absolutely scandalous because it was
frankly heretical.” This is exactly what Pope Gregory XVI
would have said about the horrible Protocol letter, as well as any
Catholic.

During
their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if
he was in agreement with the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani. Cushing responded, “I am not a
theologian. All that I know is what I am told.” This evasive
and non-committal answer shows the true colors of Cushing, this
heretic, false pastor and enemy of Jesus Christ. If Cushing believed
that one was bound to the letter, then he should have responded
without hesitation that he agreed with it. But because he didn’t
want to defend the letter in any of its details, especially its
denials of dogma, he responded by evading the question. This evasion
prohibited Fr. Feeney from putting him on the spot and convicting him
with the dogma that was being denied. Father Feeney accused Cushing
of failing in his duty and left.

Copyright information: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the information.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42